Recent HSR debates (and libertarian attitudes on urban-planning)

[Mississippi Political Freak]

My topic stems from the decision by Florida's Governor Rick Scott to reject $2.4 billion federal grant to develop a Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line (as the first leg to a eventual statewide system).  Personally, I am really appalled by his rash judgement, as he punts a critical chance to reinvent the transportation infrastructure of the Sunshine State.

However, his decisions also comes as no surprise, as Tea-Party folks who form his core of support (as evidenced by his unveiling of the state budget at a Tea Party event) are among the most ardent foes of President Obama's HSR plans. Governor Scott also quotes studies from the libertarian Reason Foundation to support his rejection of the federal HSR grant.

Here comes my core questions:
1. Why do bashing rail transit, refusing HSR funds and cancelling rail infrastructure projects seems to be a badge-of-honor for libertarians/conservatives (like the GOP governors in Ohio, Wisconsin and New Jersey do)?

2. Why the GOP, especially its libertarian elements general hostile to public transit, especially passenger rail?  Is this in part due to the low rate of transit  use among their core constituents (affluent suburbanites and rural voters)?

3. Why do libertarians insist that passenger railways (and other forms of public transit) to operate at a profit, but seldom apply similar standards on highways?

4. Why do libertarians seem to oblivious to the social and economical costs of suburban sprawl and whole-hearted embrace an auto-centric lifestyle?  Is it because that interests like real-estate developers, road builders and auto dealers are major supporters for libertarian/Tea Party causes?

5. With the relentless rise of Tea Party sentiments (at least among the vocal minorities/hyper-voters), is the prospect of President Obama's HSR vision extremely dim?

6. Is our country destined to remain an auto-centric society in the foreseeable future outside the NE Corridor and a few other major metro's, with no plausible prospect for a comprehensive public transit policy?

Hope that someone can provide insights on my queries.  Thanks!

Disclaimer: I hail from an major Asian city which public transit usage is amongst the highest in the world, hence my concern over the current HSR debate and my inability to comprehend the Tea Party's hostility to passenger rail.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. You have a distorted view of politics. It isn't about gotcha and who hates who, though that does play a roll sometimes. The main reason is that these projects always end up costing the state far more then the original estimates and many can't afford it and Repubs won't raise taxes to fund them for reasons I will describe in #2.

2. America's low density distribution and suburban/exurban development are far less conducive to effective, efficient mass transit outside the major cities. The main reason for opposition are the the following:
                               a. Cost
                               b. Impractical or no reasonable demand or need for such a connection like Miami to Orlando or Tampa to Orlando.
                               c. Most aren't "high" speed and in many cases you can get there faster driving. This is because they are stealing rails from highly profitable freight traffic, the rails are built for dense slow freight, not fast light passenger service, and cost to make the higher speeds practical is just too high to afford right now.
                               d. You can actually build a road for far less per mile and get far more use out of it then most of these lines proposed.
                               e. The people who build them are multi-national corporations who have made a business out of fleecing the tax payers into funding these boon doggles
                               f. The culture of mobility, freedom and control is hard to just abandon overnight.

3. Libertarians actually consider the roads to be operating at a profit since most of it is funded through the Gas tax and not the general funds. In fact the gas tax is siphoned off and used to fund high speed rail. Only local roads are really subsidized with other sources of revenue and these wouldn't be replaced with rail anyway. Also freight rail runs at a profit and by clogging the rails with (slow) speed rail (in some areas you will be lucky to get out of 60-75 miles per hour), you are hindering productive private sector business with impractical, unprofitable social engineering projects.

4. No more so then the Unions, enviro-facists and corporatists (who run the companies who make the trains, lie about the projected costs and screw the tax payers) support the Democrats to get these lines built. There are special interests on both sides.

 Libertarians don't beleive in using gov't to subsidize where people locate themselves or trying to influence it. It would require far more gov't intervention to undo the status quo and replace it, then to maintain it.


5. As long as the GOP controls the House, its likely dead. And as long as there is a budget deficit of this magnitude, there is no way to convince people that it just isnt' more deficit spending. And even getting passed those two hurtles, There are numerous Governors who are getting the shaft from this administration that will say go to hell whether it be un-funded Medicaid mandates being passed to the states or matching funds on rail projects that often baloon as the project goes on. These Governors will decline to accept the money and the project, even if it costs them some money (Chris Christie had to pay like 175 mil back to the Feds but that palled in comparison to the 2 billion cost overrun NJ would have had to cover) 

6. There will always be a more auto-centric focus in rural areas and low density areas for obvious reasons. As population beciomes more dense, there will be greater opportunitities for rail in West coast, and possibly Texas and Florida. Everything else is just too spread out. Oil prices and the developments of both traditional and alternative resources will play a big role in determining which way things go.

[Sbane]

 Libertarians don't beleive in using gov't to subsidize where people locate themselves or trying to influence it. It would require far more gov't intervention to undo the status quo and replace it, then to maintain it.

Seriously? Where the f were they when the freeways were built and then suburbs along with it?

Why shouldn't we just build a bunch of rail lines, follow it up with massive transit oriented development and tell the people in the exurbs to f off? The government basically did the same in the 1950's through this day arguably, but in reverse.

[tpfkaw]

Including "libertarian" and "urban planning" in the same sentence is oxymoronic.

1/2. Because it's retarded.

3. Libertarians don't care if they're running at a profit or not, libertarians do care if they're public or private.  We are against all government-owned transportation apparati.

4. lolwut?

5. It would be "extremely dim" even if 100% of the populace supported if, for the main reason that it would cost at least 5 times more and take at least 4 times longer to build than whatever the present estimates are, and then nobody would use it.

6. Whatever brainfarts the liberals have they eventually get.

[Sbane]

Anyways I hope the GOP continues with their anti-urban attitudes. I wonder how that will work out in a country where 80% of people live in cities and suburbs.

[Torie]

Anyways I hope the GOP continues with their anti-urban attitudes. I wonder how that will work out in a country where 80% of people live in cities and suburbs.

Hey dude, I love cities.

[Nhoj]

Anyways I hope the GOP continues with their anti-urban attitudes. I wonder how that will work out in a country where 80% of people live in cities and suburbs.

The GOP doesn't have an anti-suburb attitude though, they want more spending on suburban highways so more sprawl can happen. the problem is they don't want to pay for it.

[Sbane]

Anyways I hope the GOP continues with their anti-urban attitudes. I wonder how that will work out in a country where 80% of people live in cities and suburbs.

Hey dude, I love cities.

You're not the GOP.

High speed rail does have a place in society, but not everyone is going to be served by it. It's only viable in certain areas and the government shouldn't try to mess with that. That's the problem with the government trying to do things because someone within it is going to push for an illogical, unprofitable route, in some rural area somewhere. Then later on these same people will bitch that government is inefficient and gives away welfare to too many people (while opening up the checks for their farm aid). In reality it's the rural areas of the country that are most depended on the federal teat, especially since Reagan and Republicans afterwards have cut everything there was to cut in cities.

[Sbane]

Anyways I hope the GOP continues with their anti-urban attitudes. I wonder how that will work out in a country where 80% of people live in cities and suburbs.

The GOP doesn't have an anti-suburb attitude though, they want more spending on suburban highways so more sprawl can happen. the problem is they don't want to pay for it.

Yeah, and I wonder whether those who write long posts about how rail travel is inefficient or whatever will consider that or not. Building roads for sprawl now when $5 gasoline is right around the corner (oh hell yes it is and everyone better prepare for it, which the Republicans refuse to do since they only want to live in the present and don't give a crap about the future) is f'ing retarded.

[danny]

Yeah, and I wonder whether those who write long posts about how rail travel is inefficient or whatever will consider that or not. Building roads for sprawl now when $5 gasoline is right around the corner (oh hell yes it is and everyone better prepare for it, which the Republicans refuse to do since they only want to live in the present and don't give a crap about the future) is f'ing retarded.

People use gasoline because it's the most cost effective way of to power your car, if its price rises too much people will start using other fuels eventually. rising gas prices are not going to stop most people from using cars.

[Sbane]

Yeah, and I wonder whether those who write long posts about how rail travel is inefficient or whatever will consider that or not. Building roads for sprawl now when $5 gasoline is right around the corner (oh hell yes it is and everyone better prepare for it, which the Republicans refuse to do since they only want to live in the present and don't give a crap about the future) is f'ing retarded.

People use gasoline because it's the most cost effective way of to power your car, if its price rises too much people will start using other fuels eventually. rising gas prices are not going to stop most people from using cars.

I never said people would stop driving cars. They would just change their behavior and live closer to work. They would only use their car for local trips while relying on rail for longer trips. Even if we all start driving electric cars, the inconvenience of charging up on longer trips will also change behavior.

As long as we don't put taxes or restrictions on coal, electricity prices should be pretty stable. This will make rail more competitive than airplanes in the long run, and will be well worth it for short-medium haul routes. I doubt anyone is going to use rail to go to NYC from LA, for example.

One thing to consider is that high speed rail can change the pattern of development and in the future we could see lots of transit oriented development far from the big city, but relatively little sprawl. No, it doesn't mean we will all live in apartments, but in the future living relatively close to the rail station might be a priority.

[danny]

I never said people would stop driving cars. They would just change their behavior and live closer to work. They would only use their car for local trips while relying on rail for longer trips. Even if we all start driving electric cars, the inconvenience of charging up on longer trips will also change behavior.

As long as we don't put taxes or restrictions on coal, electricity prices should be pretty stable. This will make rail more competitive than airplanes in the long run, and will be well worth it for short-medium haul routes. I doubt anyone is going to use rail to go to NYC from LA, for example.

One thing to consider is that high speed rail can change the pattern of development and in the future we could see lots of transit oriented development far from the big city, but relatively little sprawl. No, it doesn't mean we will all live in apartments, but in the future living relatively close to the rail station might be a priority.

Rail is only an efficient mode of transportation in high density areas, and most of the US is very low density.

About the closer to work part you have to remember that most of the people living in the suburbs work in the suburbs and not in the city so for most of them a move to the city would mean moving further away from their workplace.

[Sbane]

I clearly stated they would live closer to work, which just might be the suburbs. I don't think those suburbs with huge officeparks are going to do badly at all, it's going to be those built way into the country that will wither, especially if they can't get companies to move there.

Some parts of our country are actually densely populated enough to support high speed rail. I definitely think connecting Sacramento to San Francisco to Fresno makes sense, as does connecting LA to SD. 

[danny]

I clearly stated they would live closer to work, which just might be the suburbs. I don't think those suburbs with huge officeparks are going to do badly at all, it's going to be those built way into the country that will wither, especially if they can't get companies to move there.

Some parts of our country are actually densely populated enough to support high speed rail. I definitely think connecting Sacramento to San Francisco to Fresno makes sense, as does connecting LA to SD. 

In which case it means that they will remain low density car dependent places which will still be needing their roads. And jobs tend to follow people so I don't see suburbs withering because of a lack of jobs, as long as people want to live in the suburbs they will be around.

[Sbane]

I clearly stated they would live closer to work, which just might be the suburbs. I don't think those suburbs with huge officeparks are going to do badly at all, it's going to be those built way into the country that will wither, especially if they can't get companies to move there.

Some parts of our country are actually densely populated enough to support high speed rail. I definitely think connecting Sacramento to San Francisco to Fresno makes sense, as does connecting LA to SD. 

In which case it means that they will remain low density car dependent places which will still be needing their roads. And jobs tend to follow people so I don't see suburbs withering because of a lack of jobs, as long as people want to live in the suburbs they will be around.

I am not really talking about your normal suburb here though. People living in Chantilly, VA will be just fine. People living in Fauquier County will get squeezed by rising gas prices though.

[danny]

I am not really talking about your normal suburb here though. People living in Chantilly, VA will be just fine. People living in Fauquier County will get squeezed by rising gas prices though.

But isn't that just the metropolitan area expanding over time? I don't personally know how they're like but I assume that 20 years ago Chantilly was more like Fauquier is now and 20 years from now Fauquier will be more like Chantilly is now.

[Sbane]

And that growth might be better served by rail service (not necessarily HSR, but even HSR needs commuter rail to supplement it). I am not arguing against growth, mind you.

[danny]

The problem with that is that even if a train is built it would only be useful to people who commute to places located along the line, and presumably the line would be built towards DC so only places to there would possibly use the train while the majority who commute all over the metro would still use their cars.

[Sbane]

The problem with that is that even if a train is built it would only be useful to people who commute to places located along the line, and presumably the line would be built towards DC so only places to there would possibly use the train while the majority who commute all over the metro would still use their cars.

Why couldn't it connect areas in the suburbs with high concencration of jobs, while traversing more residential areas with stops along the way? Every line doesn't necessarily have to go to the main city area.

Talking about commuter rail here of course. HSR works differently. It can be used as commuter rail as well, but it won't impact the vast majority of currently built areas. It can facilitate growth in the future though, and in places where the housing boom was especially bad, can go through areas that have already experience speculative growth. Places like Stockton, Modesto and Merced come to mind.

[danny]

This could only work in high density places, trains would be entirely unfeasible in a place like fauquier because the costs involved would be prohibitive.

[Mississippi Political Freak]

Hi!  I've just got some more questions on this issue on my mind:

a)  Why does the Washington Post, an otherwise liberal newspaper is staunchly against President Obama's high-speed rail vision?

b) Are Americans generally hostile to high-density living that is more conductive to high-speed passenger rail?

c) Why do libertarians seems to be more interested to keep as much money to themselves and hold on the liberty to drive wherever and whenever they like, instead of supporting visionary solutions towards a more sustainable lifestyle?

Thanks!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

a. I don't know. Read the paper, it will probably explain why.

b. Currently yes. Though there is not as much of a stigma or disdain for city living as there was 30 years ago.

c. That is a subjective question. Nor everyone considers it visionary and in fact some consider passenger rail travel a thing of the past. I certainly don't consider it visionary when its being sold as an effort to boast competativeness, yet it will be largely funded from Beijing at a time when the mounting debt is our more pressing competativeness issue.

[Mississippi Political Freak]

c. That is a subjective question. Nor everyone considers it visionary and in fact some consider passenger rail travel a thing of the past. I certainly don't consider it visionary when its being sold as an effort to boast competativeness, yet it will be largely funded from Beijing at a time when the mounting debt is our more pressing competativeness issue.

So why the notion that rail travel belongs to the past so prevalent in this country?
And what is the transportation mode for the future in the mind of these folks?  Thanks!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As long as we don't put taxes or restrictions on coal, electricity prices should be pretty stable. This will make rail more competitive than airplanes in the long run, and will be well worth it for short-medium haul routes. I doubt anyone is going to use rail to go to NYC from LA, for example.

Actually, if we get serious about reducing carbon emissions, whether via the boondoggle known as cap and trade, or a more practical carbon tax, the price of coal generated electricity will go up by about twice as much as that of natural gas generated electricity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

c. That is a subjective question. Nor everyone considers it visionary and in fact some consider passenger rail travel a thing of the past. I certainly don't consider it visionary when its being sold as an effort to boast competativeness, yet it will be largely funded from Beijing at a time when the mounting debt is our more pressing competativeness issue.

So why the notion that rail travel belongs to the past so prevalent in this country?
And what is the transportation mode for the future in the mind of these folks?  Thanks!

I didn't say it was prevalent, I said some would say that. It could be anywhere from 5% to 55%.

The reason they say that is that Passenger rail was big from 1830-1950 and then it declined in favor of the automobile and the airplane which were considered modern and futuristic.